Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1791 | control, N = 901 | treatment, N = 891 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 177 | 50.88 ± 12.64 (25 - 75) | 50.92 ± 12.93 (25 - 75) | 50.84 ± 12.43 (28 - 73) | 0.967 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 179 | 0.737 | |||
f | 143 (80%) | 71 (79%) | 72 (81%) | ||
m | 36 (20%) | 19 (21%) | 17 (19%) | ||
occupation | 179 | 0.926 | |||
day_training | 4 (2.2%) | 2 (2.2%) | 2 (2.2%) | ||
full_time | 22 (12%) | 12 (13%) | 10 (11%) | ||
homemaker | 23 (13%) | 11 (12%) | 12 (13%) | ||
other | 2 (1.1%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.2%) | ||
part_time | 32 (18%) | 16 (18%) | 16 (18%) | ||
retired | 43 (24%) | 21 (23%) | 22 (25%) | ||
self_employ | 7 (3.9%) | 4 (4.4%) | 3 (3.4%) | ||
student | 2 (1.1%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.2%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.1%) | 1 (1.1%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
unemploy | 42 (23%) | 23 (26%) | 19 (21%) | ||
marital | 179 | 0.958 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
divore | 19 (11%) | 11 (12%) | 8 (9.0%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (2.2%) | 2 (2.2%) | 2 (2.2%) | ||
married | 56 (31%) | 26 (29%) | 30 (34%) | ||
none | 85 (47%) | 43 (48%) | 42 (47%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.7%) | 2 (2.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
widow | 11 (6.1%) | 6 (6.7%) | 5 (5.6%) | ||
edu | 179 | 0.457 | |||
bachelor | 41 (23%) | 17 (19%) | 24 (27%) | ||
diploma | 32 (18%) | 21 (23%) | 11 (12%) | ||
hd_ad | 5 (2.8%) | 4 (4.4%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
postgraduate | 15 (8.4%) | 8 (8.9%) | 7 (7.9%) | ||
primary | 13 (7.3%) | 6 (6.7%) | 7 (7.9%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 20 (11%) | 10 (11%) | 10 (11%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 43 (24%) | 20 (22%) | 23 (26%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 10 (5.6%) | 4 (4.4%) | 6 (6.7%) | ||
fam_income | 179 | 0.766 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (3.4%) | 2 (2.2%) | 4 (4.5%) | ||
12001_14000 | 10 (5.6%) | 4 (4.4%) | 6 (6.7%) | ||
14001_16000 | 8 (4.5%) | 3 (3.3%) | 5 (5.6%) | ||
16001_18000 | 4 (2.2%) | 2 (2.2%) | 2 (2.2%) | ||
18001_20000 | 9 (5.0%) | 7 (7.8%) | 2 (2.2%) | ||
20001_above | 34 (19%) | 20 (22%) | 14 (16%) | ||
2001_4000 | 24 (13%) | 13 (14%) | 11 (12%) | ||
4001_6000 | 20 (11%) | 8 (8.9%) | 12 (13%) | ||
6001_8000 | 17 (9.5%) | 9 (10%) | 8 (9.0%) | ||
8001_10000 | 14 (7.8%) | 7 (7.8%) | 7 (7.9%) | ||
below_2000 | 33 (18%) | 15 (17%) | 18 (20%) | ||
medication | 179 | 159 (89%) | 79 (88%) | 80 (90%) | 0.654 |
onset_duration | 177 | 15.30 ± 10.32 (0 - 56) | 15.77 ± 11.29 (0 - 56) | 14.80 ± 9.26 (0 - 35) | 0.534 |
Unknown | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
onset_age | 175 | 35.70 ± 13.58 (10 - 65) | 35.02 ± 12.55 (10 - 61) | 36.39 ± 14.60 (14 - 65) | 0.505 |
Unknown | 4 | 2 | 2 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1791 | control, N = 901 | treatment, N = 891 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 179 | 3.14 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.18 ± 1.24 (1 - 5) | 3.10 ± 1.17 (1 - 5) | 0.671 |
recovery_stage_b | 179 | 17.89 ± 2.83 (8 - 24) | 18.01 ± 2.90 (8 - 24) | 17.76 ± 2.77 (9 - 24) | 0.561 |
ras_confidence | 179 | 29.89 ± 5.32 (14 - 45) | 29.63 ± 5.35 (14 - 42) | 30.15 ± 5.32 (18 - 45) | 0.521 |
ras_willingness | 179 | 11.79 ± 2.02 (5 - 15) | 11.76 ± 2.02 (5 - 15) | 11.82 ± 2.02 (7 - 15) | 0.831 |
ras_goal | 179 | 17.48 ± 3.17 (7 - 25) | 17.33 ± 3.16 (7 - 25) | 17.63 ± 3.20 (11 - 25) | 0.534 |
ras_reliance | 179 | 13.33 ± 2.90 (5 - 20) | 13.11 ± 2.87 (5 - 20) | 13.55 ± 2.94 (7 - 20) | 0.313 |
ras_domination | 179 | 9.80 ± 2.42 (3 - 15) | 10.01 ± 2.49 (3 - 15) | 9.60 ± 2.33 (3 - 15) | 0.251 |
symptom | 179 | 29.86 ± 9.12 (14 - 56) | 29.98 ± 9.57 (14 - 55) | 29.74 ± 8.69 (15 - 56) | 0.863 |
slof_work | 179 | 22.35 ± 4.74 (10 - 30) | 22.63 ± 4.38 (12 - 30) | 22.07 ± 5.09 (10 - 30) | 0.426 |
slof_relationship | 179 | 25.40 ± 5.87 (9 - 35) | 25.13 ± 5.91 (9 - 35) | 25.66 ± 5.86 (11 - 35) | 0.548 |
satisfaction | 179 | 20.47 ± 7.14 (5 - 35) | 19.80 ± 7.10 (5 - 34) | 21.16 ± 7.15 (5 - 35) | 0.204 |
mhc_emotional | 179 | 10.83 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 10.66 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 11.01 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 0.530 |
mhc_social | 179 | 15.11 ± 5.66 (5 - 30) | 15.12 ± 5.80 (5 - 30) | 15.10 ± 5.54 (5 - 29) | 0.980 |
mhc_psychological | 179 | 21.79 ± 6.58 (6 - 36) | 21.77 ± 6.63 (7 - 36) | 21.81 ± 6.57 (6 - 36) | 0.966 |
resilisnce | 179 | 16.45 ± 4.77 (6 - 30) | 16.01 ± 4.52 (6 - 30) | 16.90 ± 4.99 (6 - 30) | 0.214 |
social_provision | 179 | 13.57 ± 2.86 (5 - 20) | 13.26 ± 2.74 (5 - 20) | 13.89 ± 2.96 (5 - 20) | 0.140 |
els_value_living | 179 | 17.01 ± 3.19 (5 - 25) | 16.79 ± 3.11 (6 - 24) | 17.22 ± 3.26 (5 - 25) | 0.362 |
els_life_fulfill | 179 | 12.74 ± 3.41 (4 - 20) | 12.33 ± 3.39 (5 - 20) | 13.15 ± 3.40 (4 - 20) | 0.111 |
els | 179 | 29.74 ± 6.04 (9 - 45) | 29.12 ± 5.92 (11 - 44) | 30.37 ± 6.12 (9 - 45) | 0.167 |
social_connect | 179 | 26.44 ± 9.32 (8 - 48) | 26.86 ± 9.12 (8 - 48) | 26.01 ± 9.54 (8 - 48) | 0.546 |
shs_agency | 179 | 14.35 ± 5.11 (3 - 24) | 13.92 ± 4.84 (3 - 23) | 14.79 ± 5.35 (3 - 24) | 0.259 |
shs_pathway | 179 | 16.00 ± 4.17 (3 - 24) | 15.52 ± 4.22 (3 - 24) | 16.48 ± 4.10 (4 - 24) | 0.124 |
shs | 179 | 30.35 ± 8.90 (6 - 48) | 29.44 ± 8.71 (6 - 46) | 31.27 ± 9.04 (7 - 48) | 0.171 |
esteem | 179 | 12.60 ± 1.57 (9 - 20) | 12.60 ± 1.61 (9 - 18) | 12.61 ± 1.53 (10 - 20) | 0.977 |
mlq_search | 179 | 14.89 ± 3.54 (3 - 21) | 14.58 ± 3.56 (4 - 21) | 15.21 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 0.230 |
mlq_presence | 179 | 13.40 ± 4.39 (3 - 21) | 13.31 ± 4.14 (3 - 21) | 13.48 ± 4.64 (3 - 21) | 0.794 |
mlq | 179 | 28.29 ± 7.06 (6 - 42) | 27.89 ± 6.78 (7 - 40) | 28.70 ± 7.35 (6 - 42) | 0.446 |
empower | 179 | 19.20 ± 4.36 (6 - 30) | 18.91 ± 4.28 (9 - 30) | 19.48 ± 4.45 (6 - 30) | 0.382 |
ismi_resistance | 179 | 14.42 ± 2.58 (5 - 20) | 14.44 ± 2.35 (6 - 20) | 14.40 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 0.918 |
ismi_discrimation | 179 | 11.61 ± 3.04 (5 - 20) | 11.74 ± 2.91 (5 - 20) | 11.48 ± 3.18 (5 - 20) | 0.567 |
sss_affective | 179 | 10.18 ± 3.62 (3 - 18) | 10.08 ± 3.53 (3 - 18) | 10.28 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.708 |
sss_behavior | 179 | 9.84 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 9.89 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 9.80 ± 3.74 (3 - 18) | 0.871 |
sss_cognitive | 179 | 8.39 ± 3.68 (3 - 18) | 8.27 ± 3.59 (3 - 18) | 8.51 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 0.666 |
sss | 179 | 28.41 ± 10.26 (9 - 54) | 28.23 ± 10.08 (9 - 54) | 28.58 ± 10.50 (9 - 54) | 0.820 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.18 | 0.125 | 2.93, 3.42 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.077 | 0.177 | -0.424, 0.271 | 0.666 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.153 | 0.179 | -0.197, 0.504 | 0.393 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.285 | 0.261 | -0.226, 0.796 | 0.277 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.0 | 0.304 | 17.4, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.247 | 0.431 | -1.09, 0.597 | 0.567 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.196 | 0.380 | -0.942, 0.549 | 0.607 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.825 | 0.555 | -0.263, 1.91 | 0.140 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 0.560 | 28.5, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.513 | 0.794 | -1.04, 2.07 | 0.519 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.865 | 0.559 | -0.231, 1.96 | 0.125 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.10 | 0.818 | -0.505, 2.70 | 0.183 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.211 | 11.3, 12.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.065 | 0.299 | -0.521, 0.651 | 0.829 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.082 | 0.237 | -0.547, 0.382 | 0.729 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.479 | 0.346 | -0.200, 1.16 | 0.170 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.3 | 0.337 | 16.7, 18.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.296 | 0.478 | -0.641, 1.23 | 0.537 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.143 | 0.379 | -0.600, 0.886 | 0.706 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.646 | 0.554 | -0.440, 1.73 | 0.246 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.305 | 12.5, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.439 | 0.433 | -0.409, 1.29 | 0.311 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.362 | 0.333 | -0.291, 1.01 | 0.280 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.413 | 0.487 | -0.540, 1.37 | 0.398 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.0 | 0.253 | 9.52, 10.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.416 | 0.359 | -1.12, 0.288 | 0.248 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.038 | 0.332 | -0.688, 0.612 | 0.909 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.05 | 0.484 | 0.104, 2.00 | 0.032 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 30.0 | 0.957 | 28.1, 31.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.236 | 1.357 | -2.89, 2.42 | 0.862 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.53 | 0.811 | -3.12, 0.063 | 0.063 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.201 | 1.187 | -2.53, 2.13 | 0.866 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.6 | 0.496 | 21.7, 23.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.566 | 0.704 | -1.95, 0.813 | 0.422 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.075 | 0.504 | -1.06, 0.912 | 0.882 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.400 | 0.737 | -1.04, 1.84 | 0.588 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.1 | 0.613 | 23.9, 26.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.530 | 0.869 | -1.17, 2.23 | 0.543 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.265 | 0.661 | -1.56, 1.03 | 0.689 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.658 | 0.966 | -1.24, 2.55 | 0.497 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.8 | 0.749 | 18.3, 21.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.36 | 1.062 | -0.723, 3.44 | 0.203 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.700 | 0.703 | -0.678, 2.08 | 0.322 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.935 | 1.029 | -1.08, 2.95 | 0.366 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.397 | 9.88, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.356 | 0.563 | -0.748, 1.46 | 0.528 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.520 | 0.362 | -0.189, 1.23 | 0.154 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.310 | 0.530 | -1.35, 0.729 | 0.560 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.618 | 13.9, 16.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.021 | 0.876 | -1.74, 1.70 | 0.981 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.959 | 0.639 | -0.294, 2.21 | 0.137 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.179 | 0.934 | -2.01, 1.65 | 0.848 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.8 | 0.711 | 20.4, 23.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.042 | 1.008 | -1.93, 2.02 | 0.967 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.14 | 0.725 | -0.281, 2.56 | 0.119 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.293 | 1.061 | -2.37, 1.79 | 0.783 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.488 | 15.1, 17.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.888 | 0.692 | -0.468, 2.24 | 0.201 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.472 | 0.542 | -0.592, 1.53 | 0.387 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.13 | 0.793 | -0.425, 2.68 | 0.158 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.301 | 12.7, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.632 | 0.427 | -0.205, 1.47 | 0.140 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.370 | 0.333 | -1.02, 0.282 | 0.269 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.753 | 0.486 | -0.201, 1.71 | 0.125 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.337 | 16.1, 17.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.436 | 0.479 | -0.502, 1.37 | 0.364 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.289 | 0.347 | -0.390, 0.969 | 0.406 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.261 | 0.507 | -0.733, 1.26 | 0.608 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.348 | 11.7, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.813 | 0.494 | -0.155, 1.78 | 0.101 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.359 | 0.329 | -0.285, 1.00 | 0.277 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.192 | 0.481 | -0.750, 1.13 | 0.690 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.1 | 0.632 | 27.9, 30.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.25 | 0.896 | -0.508, 3.00 | 0.165 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.672 | 0.564 | -0.433, 1.78 | 0.236 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.351 | 0.825 | -1.27, 1.97 | 0.672 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.9 | 0.986 | 24.9, 28.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.844 | 1.398 | -3.58, 1.90 | 0.547 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.134 | 0.892 | -1.61, 1.88 | 0.881 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.90 | 1.306 | -5.46, -0.344 | 0.029 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.9 | 0.532 | 12.9, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.864 | 0.755 | -0.615, 2.34 | 0.253 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.517 | 0.504 | -0.472, 1.51 | 0.308 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.396 | 0.738 | -1.05, 1.84 | 0.593 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.5 | 0.428 | 14.7, 16.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.961 | 0.607 | -0.229, 2.15 | 0.115 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.650 | 0.425 | -0.184, 1.48 | 0.130 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.324 | 0.622 | -1.54, 0.895 | 0.603 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.918 | 27.6, 31.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.83 | 1.301 | -0.726, 4.38 | 0.162 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.16 | 0.868 | -0.538, 2.86 | 0.184 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.054 | 1.270 | -2.43, 2.54 | 0.966 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.163 | 12.3, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.007 | 0.231 | -0.445, 0.459 | 0.977 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.099 | 0.228 | -0.546, 0.348 | 0.665 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.222 | 0.332 | -0.430, 0.873 | 0.506 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.6 | 0.366 | 13.9, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.636 | 0.519 | -0.382, 1.65 | 0.222 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.892 | 0.451 | 0.009, 1.77 | 0.050 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.996 | 0.658 | -2.29, 0.294 | 0.133 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.455 | 12.4, 14.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.172 | 0.645 | -1.09, 1.44 | 0.790 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.948 | 0.511 | -0.053, 1.95 | 0.066 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.284 | 0.746 | -1.75, 1.18 | 0.704 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 0.738 | 26.4, 29.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.808 | 1.046 | -1.24, 2.86 | 0.441 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.85 | 0.856 | 0.168, 3.52 | 0.033 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.27 | 1.251 | -3.72, 1.19 | 0.314 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 0.457 | 18.0, 19.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.572 | 0.648 | -0.699, 1.84 | 0.379 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.00 | 0.465 | 0.089, 1.91 | 0.034 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.997 | 0.681 | -2.33, 0.337 | 0.146 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.265 | 13.9, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.040 | 0.375 | -0.776, 0.696 | 0.915 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.157 | 0.325 | -0.480, 0.794 | 0.629 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.464 | 0.475 | -0.467, 1.39 | 0.331 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.329 | 11.1, 12.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.261 | 0.466 | -1.17, 0.652 | 0.576 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.294 | 0.432 | -1.14, 0.553 | 0.498 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.515 | 0.631 | -1.75, 0.722 | 0.416 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.383 | 9.33, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.203 | 0.544 | -0.863, 1.27 | 0.709 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.040 | 0.371 | -0.768, 0.688 | 0.914 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.19 | 0.543 | -2.26, -0.125 | 0.031 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.89 | 0.391 | 9.12, 10.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.091 | 0.554 | -1.18, 0.995 | 0.869 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.296 | 0.381 | -1.04, 0.450 | 0.438 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.385 | 0.557 | -1.48, 0.706 | 0.491 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.27 | 0.384 | 7.51, 9.02 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.239 | 0.545 | -0.829, 1.31 | 0.661 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.126 | 0.398 | -0.907, 0.654 | 0.752 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.764 | 0.583 | -1.91, 0.378 | 0.193 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.080 | 26.1, 30.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.351 | 1.532 | -2.65, 3.35 | 0.819 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.499 | 0.963 | -2.39, 1.39 | 0.606 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.16 | 1.410 | -4.92, 0.604 | 0.129 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.18 (95% CI [2.93, 3.42], t(259) = 25.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.27], t(259) = -0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.50], t(259) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.80], t(259) = 1.09, p = 0.275; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.01 (95% CI [17.42, 18.61], t(259) = 59.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.60], t(259) = -0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.55], t(259) = -0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.91], t(259) = 1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.63 (95% CI [28.54, 30.73], t(259) = 52.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.04, 2.07], t(259) = 0.65, p = 0.519; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.96], t(259) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.70], t(259) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.76 (95% CI [11.34, 12.17], t(259) = 55.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.65], t(259) = 0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.38], t(259) = -0.35, p = 0.728; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.16], t(259) = 1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.33 (95% CI [16.67, 17.99], t(259) = 51.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.23], t(259) = 0.62, p = 0.536; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.89], t(259) = 0.38, p = 0.706; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.73], t(259) = 1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.11 (95% CI [12.51, 13.71], t(259) = 42.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.29], t(259) = 1.01, p = 0.310; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.01], t(259) = 1.09, p = 0.277; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.37], t(259) = 0.85, p = 0.396; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.52, 10.51], t(259) = 39.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.29], t(259) = -1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.61], t(259) = -0.11, p = 0.909; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [0.10, 2.00], t(259) = 2.17, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [0.04, 0.83])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.20e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.98 (95% CI [28.10, 31.85], t(259) = 31.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-2.89, 2.42], t(259) = -0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-3.12, 0.06], t(259) = -1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.34, 6.86e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-2.53, 2.13], t(259) = -0.17, p = 0.866; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.63 (95% CI [21.66, 23.61], t(259) = 45.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.81], t(259) = -0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.91], t(259) = -0.15, p = 0.882; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.04, 1.84], t(259) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.13 (95% CI [23.93, 26.33], t(259) = 41.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.17, 2.23], t(259) = 0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.56, 1.03], t(259) = -0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.24, 2.55], t(259) = 0.68, p = 0.496; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.80 (95% CI [18.33, 21.27], t(259) = 26.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.36, 95% CI [-0.72, 3.44], t(259) = 1.28, p = 0.201; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.68, 2.08], t(259) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.95], t(259) = 0.91, p = 0.363; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.57e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.66 (95% CI [9.88, 11.43], t(259) = 26.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.46], t(259) = 0.63, p = 0.528; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.23], t(259) = 1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.35, 0.73], t(259) = -0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.12 (95% CI [13.91, 16.33], t(259) = 24.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-1.74, 1.70], t(259) = -0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = -3.64e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.21], t(259) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-2.01, 1.65], t(259) = -0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.77 (95% CI [20.37, 23.16], t(259) = 30.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.93, 2.02], t(259) = 0.04, p = 0.967; Std. beta = 6.35e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.28, 2.56], t(259) = 1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-2.37, 1.79], t(259) = -0.28, p = 0.782; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.01 (95% CI [15.06, 16.97], t(259) = 32.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.24], t(259) = 1.28, p = 0.199; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.53], t(259) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.68], t(259) = 1.42, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.67, 13.85], t(259) = 44.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.47], t(259) = 1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.28], t(259) = -1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.71], t(259) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.79 (95% CI [16.13, 17.45], t(259) = 49.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.37], t(259) = 0.91, p = 0.363; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.97], t(259) = 0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.26], t(259) = 0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.33 (95% CI [11.65, 13.02], t(259) = 35.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.78], t(259) = 1.65, p = 0.100; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.00], t(259) = 1.09, p = 0.274; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.13], t(259) = 0.40, p = 0.689; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.12 (95% CI [27.88, 30.36], t(259) = 46.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.51, 3.00], t(259) = 1.39, p = 0.163; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.78], t(259) = 1.19, p = 0.233; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.97], t(259) = 0.43, p = 0.671; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.86 (95% CI [24.92, 28.79], t(259) = 27.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-3.58, 1.90], t(259) = -0.60, p = 0.546; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.61, 1.88], t(259) = 0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.90, 95% CI [-5.46, -0.34], t(259) = -2.22, p = 0.026; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.92 (95% CI [12.88, 14.97], t(259) = 26.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.61, 2.34], t(259) = 1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.51], t(259) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.05, 1.84], t(259) = 0.54, p = 0.592; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.52 (95% CI [14.68, 16.36], t(259) = 36.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.15], t(259) = 1.58, p = 0.113; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.48], t(259) = 1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.90], t(259) = -0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.44 (95% CI [27.65, 31.24], t(259) = 32.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.83, 95% CI [-0.73, 4.38], t(259) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [-0.54, 2.86], t(259) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-2.43, 2.54], t(259) = 0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = 6.29e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.60 (95% CI [12.28, 12.92], t(259) = 77.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.74e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.46], t(259) = 0.03, p = 0.977; Std. beta = 4.37e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.35], t(259) = -0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.87], t(259) = 0.67, p = 0.505; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.58 (95% CI [13.86, 15.30], t(259) = 39.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.65], t(259) = 1.22, p = 0.221; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [8.64e-03, 1.77], t(259) = 1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [2.48e-03, 0.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.00, 95% CI [-2.29, 0.29], t(259) = -1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.01e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.31 (95% CI [12.42, 14.20], t(259) = 29.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.44], t(259) = 0.27, p = 0.790; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.95], t(259) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.75, 1.18], t(259) = -0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.33e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.89 (95% CI [26.44, 29.33], t(259) = 37.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.24, 2.86], t(259) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.85, 95% CI [0.17, 3.52], t(259) = 2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.19], t(259) = -1.01, p = 0.312; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.91 (95% CI [18.02, 19.81], t(259) = 41.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.84], t(259) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [0.09, 1.91], t(259) = 2.15, p = 0.032; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.02, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.00, 95% CI [-2.33, 0.34], t(259) = -1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.18e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.44 (95% CI [13.93, 14.96], t(259) = 54.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.70], t(259) = -0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.79], t(259) = 0.48, p = 0.628; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.39], t(259) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.74 (95% CI [11.10, 12.39], t(259) = 35.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.65], t(259) = -0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.55], t(259) = -0.68, p = 0.497; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.75, 0.72], t(259) = -0.82, p = 0.415; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.08 (95% CI [9.33, 10.83], t(259) = 26.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.27], t(259) = 0.37, p = 0.709; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.69], t(259) = -0.11, p = 0.914; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-2.26, -0.13], t(259) = -2.19, p = 0.028; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.61, -0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.89 (95% CI [9.12, 10.65], t(259) = 25.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.99], t(259) = -0.16, p = 0.869; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.45], t(259) = -0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.71], t(259) = -0.69, p = 0.489; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.27 (95% CI [7.51, 9.02], t(259) = 21.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.31], t(259) = 0.44, p = 0.661; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.65], t(259) = -0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.76, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.38], t(259) = -1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.23 (95% CI [26.12, 30.35], t(259) = 26.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-2.65, 3.35], t(259) = 0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-2.39, 1.39], t(259) = -0.52, p = 0.605; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.16, 95% CI [-4.92, 0.60], t(259) = -1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 837.006 | 847.745 | -415.503 | 831.006 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 837.064 | 858.542 | -412.532 | 825.064 | 5.941 | 3 | 0.114 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,286.590 | 1,297.329 | -640.295 | 1,280.590 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,289.875 | 1,311.353 | -638.937 | 1,277.875 | 2.715 | 3 | 0.438 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,588.304 | 1,599.043 | -791.152 | 1,582.304 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,580.534 | 1,602.013 | -784.267 | 1,568.534 | 13.770 | 3 | 0.003 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,077.939 | 1,088.678 | -535.969 | 1,071.939 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,080.918 | 1,102.396 | -534.459 | 1,068.918 | 3.021 | 3 | 0.388 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,328.671 | 1,339.410 | -661.335 | 1,322.671 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,329.710 | 1,351.188 | -658.855 | 1,317.710 | 4.961 | 3 | 0.175 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,274.051 | 1,284.791 | -634.026 | 1,268.051 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,272.513 | 1,293.992 | -630.257 | 1,260.513 | 7.538 | 3 | 0.057 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,201.939 | 1,212.678 | -597.970 | 1,195.939 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,199.580 | 1,221.058 | -593.790 | 1,187.580 | 8.359 | 3 | 0.039 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,839.611 | 1,850.350 | -916.805 | 1,833.611 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,838.260 | 1,859.738 | -913.130 | 1,826.260 | 7.351 | 3 | 0.062 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,513.845 | 1,524.584 | -753.922 | 1,507.845 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,518.974 | 1,540.453 | -753.487 | 1,506.974 | 0.870 | 3 | 0.833 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,635.370 | 1,646.109 | -814.685 | 1,629.370 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,640.179 | 1,661.657 | -814.090 | 1,628.179 | 1.191 | 3 | 0.755 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,726.751 | 1,737.491 | -860.376 | 1,720.751 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,724.718 | 1,746.196 | -856.359 | 1,712.718 | 8.034 | 3 | 0.045 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,380.640 | 1,391.379 | -687.320 | 1,374.640 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,384.017 | 1,405.495 | -686.008 | 1,372.017 | 2.623 | 3 | 0.453 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,635.506 | 1,646.246 | -814.753 | 1,629.506 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,637.956 | 1,659.435 | -812.978 | 1,625.956 | 3.550 | 3 | 0.314 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,708.086 | 1,718.825 | -851.043 | 1,702.086 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,710.413 | 1,731.891 | -849.207 | 1,698.413 | 3.673 | 3 | 0.299 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,529.206 | 1,539.946 | -761.603 | 1,523.206 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,523.804 | 1,545.282 | -755.902 | 1,511.804 | 11.403 | 3 | 0.010 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,267.603 | 1,278.343 | -630.802 | 1,261.603 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,267.093 | 1,288.571 | -627.546 | 1,255.093 | 6.511 | 3 | 0.089 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,314.615 | 1,325.354 | -654.308 | 1,308.615 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,316.547 | 1,338.026 | -652.274 | 1,304.547 | 4.068 | 3 | 0.254 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,320.552 | 1,331.291 | -657.276 | 1,314.552 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,319.731 | 1,341.209 | -653.865 | 1,307.731 | 6.821 | 3 | 0.078 |
els | null | 3 | 1,627.245 | 1,637.984 | -810.622 | 1,621.245 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,626.652 | 1,648.131 | -807.326 | 1,614.652 | 6.592 | 3 | 0.086 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,868.298 | 1,879.037 | -931.149 | 1,862.298 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,864.618 | 1,886.096 | -926.309 | 1,852.618 | 9.681 | 3 | 0.021 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,544.857 | 1,555.596 | -769.429 | 1,538.857 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,545.244 | 1,566.723 | -766.622 | 1,533.244 | 5.613 | 3 | 0.132 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,436.399 | 1,447.138 | -715.200 | 1,430.399 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,437.356 | 1,458.834 | -712.678 | 1,425.356 | 5.043 | 3 | 0.169 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,833.337 | 1,844.077 | -913.669 | 1,827.337 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,833.744 | 1,855.222 | -910.872 | 1,821.744 | 5.593 | 3 | 0.133 |
esteem | null | 3 | 968.107 | 978.846 | -481.053 | 962.107 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 973.550 | 995.029 | -480.775 | 961.550 | 0.556 | 3 | 0.906 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,384.982 | 1,395.721 | -689.491 | 1,378.982 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,386.491 | 1,407.969 | -687.245 | 1,374.491 | 4.491 | 3 | 0.213 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,487.085 | 1,497.824 | -740.543 | 1,481.085 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,488.158 | 1,509.636 | -738.079 | 1,476.158 | 4.928 | 3 | 0.177 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,748.533 | 1,759.272 | -871.266 | 1,742.533 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,749.317 | 1,770.796 | -868.659 | 1,737.317 | 5.216 | 3 | 0.157 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,474.754 | 1,485.493 | -734.377 | 1,468.754 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,475.941 | 1,497.419 | -731.970 | 1,463.941 | 4.814 | 3 | 0.186 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,211.823 | 1,222.562 | -602.911 | 1,205.823 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,214.312 | 1,235.790 | -601.156 | 1,202.312 | 3.511 | 3 | 0.319 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,336.756 | 1,347.495 | -665.378 | 1,330.756 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,338.398 | 1,359.876 | -663.199 | 1,326.398 | 4.358 | 3 | 0.225 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,378.563 | 1,389.302 | -686.282 | 1,372.563 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,374.979 | 1,396.458 | -681.490 | 1,362.979 | 9.584 | 3 | 0.022 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,383.402 | 1,394.141 | -688.701 | 1,377.402 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,385.844 | 1,407.322 | -686.922 | 1,373.844 | 3.558 | 3 | 0.313 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,385.181 | 1,395.920 | -689.591 | 1,379.181 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,386.650 | 1,408.128 | -687.325 | 1,374.650 | 4.531 | 3 | 0.210 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,911.671 | 1,922.411 | -952.836 | 1,905.671 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,910.722 | 1,932.200 | -949.361 | 1,898.722 | 6.950 | 3 | 0.074 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 90 | 3.18 ± 1.19 | 89 | 3.10 ± 1.19 | 0.666 | 0.082 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 46 | 3.33 ± 1.15 | -0.165 | 40 | 3.54 ± 1.14 | -0.471 | 0.402 | -0.224 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 90 | 18.01 ± 2.88 | 89 | 17.76 ± 2.88 | 0.567 | 0.128 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 46 | 17.81 ± 2.67 | 0.102 | 40 | 18.39 ± 2.64 | -0.325 | 0.314 | -0.299 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 90 | 29.63 ± 5.31 | 89 | 30.15 ± 5.31 | 0.519 | -0.185 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 46 | 30.50 ± 4.58 | -0.312 | 40 | 32.11 ± 4.48 | -0.707 | 0.101 | -0.580 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 90 | 11.76 ± 2.00 | 89 | 11.82 ± 2.00 | 0.829 | -0.054 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 46 | 11.67 ± 1.79 | 0.069 | 40 | 12.22 ± 1.76 | -0.333 | 0.158 | -0.457 |
ras_goal | 1st | 90 | 17.33 ± 3.20 | 89 | 17.63 ± 3.20 | 0.537 | -0.156 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 46 | 17.48 ± 2.86 | -0.075 | 40 | 18.42 ± 2.81 | -0.415 | 0.125 | -0.495 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 90 | 13.11 ± 2.90 | 89 | 13.55 ± 2.90 | 0.311 | -0.264 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 46 | 13.47 ± 2.56 | -0.217 | 40 | 14.33 ± 2.52 | -0.465 | 0.122 | -0.512 |
ras_domination | 1st | 90 | 10.01 ± 2.40 | 89 | 9.60 ± 2.40 | 0.248 | 0.245 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 46 | 9.97 ± 2.26 | 0.022 | 40 | 10.61 ± 2.24 | -0.597 | 0.191 | -0.375 |
symptom | 1st | 90 | 29.98 ± 9.07 | 89 | 29.74 ± 9.07 | 0.862 | 0.059 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 46 | 28.45 ± 7.50 | 0.383 | 40 | 28.01 ± 7.27 | 0.433 | 0.784 | 0.110 |
slof_work | 1st | 90 | 22.63 ± 4.71 | 89 | 22.07 ± 4.71 | 0.422 | 0.226 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 46 | 22.56 ± 4.08 | 0.030 | 40 | 22.39 ± 3.99 | -0.130 | 0.850 | 0.066 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 90 | 25.13 ± 5.82 | 89 | 25.66 ± 5.82 | 0.543 | -0.160 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 46 | 24.87 ± 5.13 | 0.080 | 40 | 26.06 ± 5.04 | -0.119 | 0.281 | -0.360 |
satisfaction | 1st | 90 | 19.80 ± 7.10 | 89 | 21.16 ± 7.10 | 0.203 | -0.390 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 46 | 20.50 ± 6.02 | -0.201 | 40 | 22.79 ± 5.87 | -0.471 | 0.075 | -0.659 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 90 | 10.66 ± 3.77 | 89 | 11.01 ± 3.77 | 0.528 | -0.199 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 46 | 11.18 ± 3.17 | -0.291 | 40 | 11.22 ± 3.09 | -0.118 | 0.946 | -0.026 |
mhc_social | 1st | 90 | 15.12 ± 5.86 | 89 | 15.10 ± 5.86 | 0.981 | 0.007 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 46 | 16.08 ± 5.11 | -0.301 | 40 | 15.88 ± 5.00 | -0.245 | 0.854 | 0.063 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 90 | 21.77 ± 6.75 | 89 | 21.81 ± 6.75 | 0.967 | -0.012 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 46 | 22.91 ± 5.85 | -0.316 | 40 | 22.66 ± 5.73 | -0.235 | 0.841 | 0.070 |
resilisnce | 1st | 90 | 16.01 ± 4.63 | 89 | 16.90 ± 4.63 | 0.201 | -0.327 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 46 | 16.48 ± 4.12 | -0.173 | 40 | 18.50 ± 4.05 | -0.589 | 0.023 | -0.742 |
social_provision | 1st | 90 | 13.26 ± 2.86 | 89 | 13.89 ± 2.86 | 0.140 | -0.379 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 46 | 12.89 ± 2.54 | 0.222 | 40 | 14.27 ± 2.50 | -0.229 | 0.012 | -0.831 |
els_value_living | 1st | 90 | 16.79 ± 3.20 | 89 | 17.22 ± 3.20 | 0.364 | -0.253 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 46 | 17.08 ± 2.78 | -0.168 | 40 | 17.77 ± 2.73 | -0.319 | 0.243 | -0.404 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 90 | 12.33 ± 3.30 | 89 | 13.15 ± 3.30 | 0.101 | -0.500 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 46 | 12.69 ± 2.80 | -0.221 | 40 | 13.70 ± 2.73 | -0.339 | 0.094 | -0.618 |
els | 1st | 90 | 29.12 ± 5.99 | 89 | 30.37 ± 5.99 | 0.165 | -0.449 | ||
els | 2nd | 46 | 29.79 ± 5.01 | -0.242 | 40 | 31.39 ± 4.88 | -0.368 | 0.136 | -0.576 |
social_connect | 1st | 90 | 26.86 ± 9.35 | 89 | 26.01 ± 9.35 | 0.547 | 0.192 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 46 | 26.99 ± 7.85 | -0.031 | 40 | 23.24 ± 7.64 | 0.629 | 0.026 | 0.852 |
shs_agency | 1st | 90 | 13.92 ± 5.05 | 89 | 14.79 ± 5.05 | 0.253 | -0.347 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 46 | 14.44 ± 4.29 | -0.207 | 40 | 15.70 ± 4.19 | -0.366 | 0.170 | -0.505 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 90 | 15.52 ± 4.06 | 89 | 16.48 ± 4.06 | 0.115 | -0.455 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 46 | 16.17 ± 3.50 | -0.308 | 40 | 16.81 ± 3.42 | -0.154 | 0.395 | -0.302 |
shs | 1st | 90 | 29.44 ± 8.71 | 89 | 31.27 ± 8.71 | 0.162 | -0.425 | ||
shs | 2nd | 46 | 30.61 ± 7.40 | -0.271 | 40 | 32.49 ± 7.21 | -0.284 | 0.235 | -0.438 |
esteem | 1st | 90 | 12.60 ± 1.54 | 89 | 12.61 ± 1.54 | 0.977 | -0.006 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 46 | 12.50 ± 1.48 | 0.084 | 40 | 12.73 ± 1.47 | -0.104 | 0.476 | -0.193 |
mlq_search | 1st | 90 | 14.58 ± 3.47 | 89 | 15.21 ± 3.47 | 0.222 | -0.278 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 46 | 15.47 ± 3.20 | -0.390 | 40 | 15.11 ± 3.16 | 0.046 | 0.601 | 0.158 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 90 | 13.31 ± 4.31 | 89 | 13.48 ± 4.31 | 0.790 | -0.067 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 46 | 14.26 ± 3.86 | -0.370 | 40 | 14.15 ± 3.79 | -0.259 | 0.892 | 0.044 |
mlq | 1st | 90 | 27.89 ± 7.00 | 89 | 28.70 ± 7.00 | 0.441 | -0.187 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 46 | 29.73 ± 6.32 | -0.428 | 40 | 29.28 ± 6.23 | -0.135 | 0.736 | 0.106 |
empower | 1st | 90 | 18.91 ± 4.34 | 89 | 19.48 ± 4.34 | 0.379 | -0.247 | ||
empower | 2nd | 46 | 19.91 ± 3.76 | -0.433 | 40 | 19.49 ± 3.68 | -0.002 | 0.598 | 0.184 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 90 | 14.44 ± 2.51 | 89 | 14.40 ± 2.51 | 0.915 | 0.024 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 46 | 14.60 ± 2.31 | -0.096 | 40 | 15.03 ± 2.28 | -0.377 | 0.394 | -0.257 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 90 | 11.74 ± 3.12 | 89 | 11.48 ± 3.12 | 0.576 | 0.118 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 46 | 11.45 ± 2.93 | 0.133 | 40 | 10.67 ± 2.91 | 0.365 | 0.220 | 0.350 |
sss_affective | 1st | 90 | 10.08 ± 3.64 | 89 | 10.28 ± 3.64 | 0.709 | -0.110 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 46 | 10.04 ± 3.11 | 0.022 | 40 | 9.05 ± 3.04 | 0.669 | 0.138 | 0.537 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 90 | 9.89 ± 3.71 | 89 | 9.80 ± 3.71 | 0.869 | 0.048 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 46 | 9.59 ± 3.17 | 0.157 | 40 | 9.12 ± 3.10 | 0.361 | 0.483 | 0.253 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 90 | 8.27 ± 3.64 | 89 | 8.51 ± 3.64 | 0.661 | -0.120 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 46 | 8.14 ± 3.18 | 0.064 | 40 | 7.61 ± 3.11 | 0.449 | 0.440 | 0.265 |
sss | 1st | 90 | 28.23 ± 10.25 | 89 | 28.58 ± 10.25 | 0.819 | -0.074 | ||
sss | 2nd | 46 | 27.73 ± 8.57 | 0.105 | 40 | 25.93 ± 8.34 | 0.560 | 0.323 | 0.381 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(239.22) = -0.43, p = 0.666, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.27)
2st
t(255.27) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.28 to 0.70)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(222.06) = -0.57, p = 0.567, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.60)
2st
t(255.70) = 1.01, p = 0.314, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.71)
ras_confidence
1st
t(202.89) = 0.65, p = 0.519, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.05 to 2.08)
2st
t(260.77) = 1.64, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.32 to 3.54)
ras_willingness
1st
t(211.47) = 0.22, p = 0.829, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.65)
2st
t(258.41) = 1.42, p = 0.158, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.30)
ras_goal
1st
t(211.51) = 0.62, p = 0.537, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.24)
2st
t(258.39) = 1.54, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.26 to 2.15)
ras_reliance
1st
t(209.02) = 1.01, p = 0.311, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.29)
2st
t(259.18) = 1.55, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.93)
ras_domination
1st
t(227.46) = -1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.29)
2st
t(255.01) = 1.31, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.59)
symptom
1st
t(194.73) = -0.17, p = 0.862, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.91 to 2.44)
2st
t(259.18) = -0.27, p = 0.784, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-3.58 to 2.70)
slof_work
1st
t(203.96) = -0.80, p = 0.422, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.82)
2st
t(260.57) = -0.19, p = 0.850, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.88 to 1.55)
slof_relationship
1st
t(208.11) = 0.61, p = 0.543, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.18 to 2.24)
2st
t(259.46) = 1.08, p = 0.281, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.98 to 3.35)
satisfaction
1st
t(199.46) = 1.28, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.74 to 3.45)
2st
t(260.97) = 1.78, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.24 to 4.82)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(197.95) = 0.63, p = 0.528, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.47)
2st
t(260.73) = 0.07, p = 0.946, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.38)
mhc_social
1st
t(205.18) = -0.02, p = 0.981, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.71)
2st
t(260.29) = -0.18, p = 0.854, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.35 to 1.95)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(204.27) = 0.04, p = 0.967, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.03)
2st
t(260.50) = -0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.72 to 2.21)
resilisnce
1st
t(210.58) = 1.28, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.48 to 2.25)
2st
t(258.69) = 2.28, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (0.28 to 3.76)
social_provision
1st
t(210.10) = 1.48, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.47)
2st
t(258.84) = 2.55, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (0.31 to 2.46)
els_value_living
1st
t(204.74) = 0.91, p = 0.364, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.38)
2st
t(260.39) = 1.17, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.87)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(199.71) = 1.65, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.79)
2st
t(260.98) = 1.68, p = 0.094, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.18)
els
1st
t(196.93) = 1.39, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.52 to 3.02)
2st
t(260.42) = 1.50, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.50 to 3.70)
social_connect
1st
t(197.58) = -0.60, p = 0.547, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.60 to 1.91)
2st
t(260.63) = -2.24, p = 0.026, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-7.04 to -0.45)
shs_agency
1st
t(199.91) = 1.15, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.62 to 2.35)
2st
t(260.99) = 1.38, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.54 to 3.06)
shs_pathway
1st
t(202.61) = 1.58, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.16)
2st
t(260.82) = 0.85, p = 0.395, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.11)
shs
1st
t(199.80) = 1.40, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.74 to 4.39)
2st
t(260.99) = 1.19, p = 0.235, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-1.23 to 4.99)
esteem
1st
t(236.52) = 0.03, p = 0.977, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.46)
2st
t(255.01) = 0.71, p = 0.476, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.86)
mlq_search
1st
t(220.12) = 1.22, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.66)
2st
t(256.07) = -0.52, p = 0.601, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.71 to 0.99)
mlq_presence
1st
t(211.37) = 0.27, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.44)
2st
t(258.44) = -0.14, p = 0.892, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.74 to 1.51)
mlq
1st
t(214.27) = 0.77, p = 0.441, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.87)
2st
t(257.56) = -0.34, p = 0.736, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-3.13 to 2.21)
empower
1st
t(204.14) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.85)
2st
t(260.53) = -0.53, p = 0.598, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.01 to 1.16)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(219.85) = -0.11, p = 0.915, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.70)
2st
t(256.13) = 0.85, p = 0.394, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.40)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(227.91) = -0.56, p = 0.576, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.66)
2st
t(254.97) = -1.23, p = 0.220, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.02 to 0.47)
sss_affective
1st
t(201.11) = 0.37, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.28)
2st
t(260.98) = -1.49, p = 0.138, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-2.29 to 0.32)
sss_behavior
1st
t(201.48) = -0.16, p = 0.869, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.00)
2st
t(260.95) = -0.70, p = 0.483, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.86)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(205.37) = 0.44, p = 0.661, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.31)
2st
t(260.24) = -0.77, p = 0.440, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.86 to 0.81)
sss
1st
t(196.90) = 0.23, p = 0.819, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.67 to 3.37)
2st
t(260.40) = -0.99, p = 0.323, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-5.40 to 1.79)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(125.49) = 2.30, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.81)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(111.68) = 1.55, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.43)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(99.00) = 3.28, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.78 to 3.15)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(104.44) = 1.56, p = 0.242, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.11 to 0.90)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(104.47) = 1.95, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.59)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(102.85) = 2.18, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.48)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(115.68) = 2.87, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.72)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(94.08) = -1.99, p = 0.099, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-3.45 to -0.00)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(99.65) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.39)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(102.27) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.79)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(96.90) = 2.17, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.14 to 3.13)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(95.99) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.98)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(100.42) = 1.14, p = 0.514, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.14)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(99.85) = 1.09, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.39)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(103.86) = 2.76, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.45 to 2.75)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(103.55) = 1.07, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.09)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(100.14) = 1.48, p = 0.283, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.29)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(97.05) = 1.57, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.25)
els
1st vs 2st
t(95.38) = 1.69, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.22)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(95.77) = -2.90, p = 0.009, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-4.66 to -0.87)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(97.18) = 1.69, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.98)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(98.82) = 0.71, p = 0.953, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.23)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(97.10) = 1.31, p = 0.386, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.63 to 3.06)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(123.06) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.60)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(110.30) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.85)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(104.37) = 1.21, p = 0.454, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.75)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(106.29) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.23 to 2.39)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(99.77) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.99)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(110.11) = 1.79, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.31)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(116.03) = -1.75, p = 0.165, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.72 to 0.11)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(97.90) = -3.10, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.02 to -0.44)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(98.13) = -1.67, p = 0.195, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.49 to 0.13)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(100.54) = -2.09, p = 0.078, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.74 to -0.04)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(95.36) = -2.58, p = 0.023, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-4.71 to -0.61)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(119.96) = 0.85, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.51)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(108.13) = -0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.56)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(97.17) = 1.54, p = 0.252, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.98)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(101.89) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.39)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(101.91) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.61 to 0.90)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(100.51) = 1.08, p = 0.562, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.02)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(111.56) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.62)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(92.88) = -1.88, p = 0.127, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.14 to 0.09)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(97.74) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.93)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(100.01) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.58 to 1.05)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(95.34) = 0.99, p = 0.645, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.10)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(94.55) = 1.43, p = 0.309, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.24)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(98.40) = 1.50, p = 0.275, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.23)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(97.91) = 1.57, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.58)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(101.38) = 0.87, p = 0.776, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.55)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(101.12) = -1.11, p = 0.540, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.29)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(98.16) = 0.83, p = 0.815, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.98)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(95.48) = 1.09, p = 0.556, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.01)
els
1st vs 2st
t(94.02) = 1.19, p = 0.474, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.79)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(94.36) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.64 to 1.91)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(95.58) = 1.02, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.52)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(97.01) = 1.52, p = 0.261, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.50)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(95.52) = 1.34, p = 0.369, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.89)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(117.89) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.35)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(106.94) = 1.97, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.79)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(101.83) = 1.85, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.96)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(103.49) = 2.15, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.14 to 3.55)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(97.84) = 2.15, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.93)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(106.78) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.80)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(111.86) = -0.68, p = 0.999, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.15 to 0.57)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(96.22) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.70)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(96.41) = -0.78, p = 0.878, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.46)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(98.51) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.67)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(94.00) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.41 to 1.42)
Plot
